www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Non OSI approved licenses
Date Tue, 02 May 2017 06:28:48 GMT
In trading an email off-list a little bit about this subject, I just
realized something:

On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 7:08 AM, Jim Jagielski <jim@jagunet.com> wrote:
>...

> As a developer as well as end-user, and as someone who works
> at a company that leverages FOSS, s/w obtained from the ASF
> has always been "safe" in that there were always expectations
> related to the s/w... one of which, as I have phrased it
> before, is that it is "brain dead easy", legal-wise, to
> consume it; that there's nothing in there that would cause lawyers
> to get itchy.
>
> Inclusion of non-OSI approved licenses make lawyers itchy.
>

I would only agree with this if we have evidence that OSI is trusted more
than the ASF.

I don't think that is necessarily true. If the ASF provides a release and
says "ALv2", then why not trust that?

Cheers,
-g

Mime
View raw message